The roles of textural images in improving land-cover classification in the Brazilian Amazon

Texture has long been recognized as valuable in improving land-cover classification, but how data from different sensors with varying spatial resolutions affect the selection of textural images is poorly understood. This research examines textural images from the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), ALOS (Advanced Land Observing Satellite) PALSAR (Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar), the SPOT (Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre) high-resolution geometric (HRG) instrument, and the QuickBird satellite, which have pixel sizes of 30, 12.5, 10/5, and 0.6 m, respectively, for land-cover classification in the Brazilian Amazon. GLCM (grey-level co-occurrence matrix)-based texture measures with various sizes of moving windows are used to extract textural images from the aforementioned sensor data. An index based on standard deviations and correlation coefficients is used to identify the best texture combination following separability analysis of land-cover types based on training sample plots. A maximum likelihood classifier is used to conduct the land-cover classification, and the results are evaluated using field survey data. This research shows the importance of textural images in improving land-cover classification, and the importance becomes more significant as the pixel size improved. It is also shown that texture is especially important in the case of the ALOS PALSAR and QuickBird data. Overall, textural images have less capability in distinguishing land-cover types than spectral signatures, especially for Landsat TM imagery, but incorporation of textures into radiometric data is valuable for improving land-cover classification. The classification accuracy can be improved by 5.2–13.4% as the pixel size changes from 30 to 0.6 m.

[1]  G. Foody,et al.  Estimating tropical forest biomass with a combination of SAR image texture and Landsat TM data: An assessment of predictions between regions , 2012 .

[2]  Jon Atli Benediktsson,et al.  Classification of hyperspectral data using extended attribute profiles based on supervised and unsupervised feature extraction techniques , 2012 .

[3]  V. Radeloff,et al.  Modeling broad-scale patterns of avian species richness across the Midwestern United States with measures of satellite image texture , 2012 .

[4]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Relating SAR image texture to the biomass of regenerating tropical forests , 2005 .

[5]  Luciano Vieira Dutra,et al.  A comparative analysis of ALOS PALSAR L-band and RADARSAT-2 C-band data for land-cover classification in a tropical moist region , 2012 .

[6]  Ross F. Hayward,et al.  Spectral–texture feature extraction using statistical moments with application to object-based vegetation species classification , 2011 .

[7]  M. A. Aguilar,et al.  Using texture analysis to improve per-pixel classification of very high resolution images for mapping plastic greenhouses , 2008 .

[8]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[9]  J. Dubois,et al.  Evaluation Of The Grey-level Co-occurrence Matrix Method For Land-cover Classification Using Spot Imagery , 1990 .

[10]  Iván Torres,et al.  Modeling plant species richness using reflectance and texture data derived from QuickBird in a recently burned area of Central Spain , 2012 .

[11]  D. Lu,et al.  Land-cover classification in a moist tropical region of Brazil with Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery , 2011 .

[12]  Luciano Vieira Dutra,et al.  Some experiments with spatial feature extraction methods in multispectral classification , 1984 .

[13]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[14]  J. Nichol,et al.  Improved forest biomass estimates using ALOS AVNIR-2 texture indices , 2011 .

[15]  M. Batistella,et al.  COMPARISON OF LAND-COVER CLASSIFICATION METHODS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON BASIN , 2004 .

[16]  Onkar Dikshit,et al.  A new approach for finding an appropriate combination of texture parameters for classification , 2010 .

[17]  M. Batistella,et al.  A Comparative Study of Landsat TM and SPOT HRG Images for Vegetation Classification in the Brazilian Amazon. , 2008, Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing.

[18]  P. Chavez.  Image-Based Atmospheric Corrections - Revisited and Improved , 1996 .

[19]  A. Huete,et al.  A review of vegetation indices , 1995 .

[20]  Koushik Seetharaman,et al.  Texture characterization, representation, description, and classification based on full range Gaussian Markov random field model with Bayesian approach , 2013 .

[21]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Random Forest classification of Mediterranean land cover using multi-seasonal imagery and multi-seasonal texture , 2012 .

[22]  Assia Kourgli,et al.  Texture modelling for land cover classification of fully polarimetric SAR images , 2012 .

[23]  Qin Yan,et al.  Unsupervised classification of polarimetric synthetic aperture radar images using kernel fuzzy C-means clustering , 2012 .

[24]  B. Markham,et al.  Summary of Current Radiometric Calibration Coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI Sensors , 2009 .

[25]  G. Foody.  Classification accuracy comparison: hypothesis tests and the use of confidence intervals in evaluations of difference, equivalence and non-inferiority , 2009 .

[26]  Qihao Weng,et al.  A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance , 2007 .

[27]  E. Moran.  Land Cover Classification in a Complex Urban-Rural Landscape with Quickbird Imagery. , 2010, Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing.

[28]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[29]  Dongmei Chen,et al.  Examining the effect of spatial resolution and texture window size on classification accuracy: an urban environment case , 2004 .

[30]  N. Coops,et al.  Application of high spatial resolution satellite imagery for riparian and forest ecosystem classification , 2007 .

[31]  Peijun Li,et al.  Land cover classification using CHRIS/PROBA images and multi-temporal texture , 2012 .

[32]  Wei Su,et al.  Textural and local spatial statistics for the object‐oriented classification of urban areas using high resolution imagery , 2008 .

[33]  P. Gong,et al.  Comparison of IKONOS and QuickBird images for mapping mangrove species on the Caribbean coast of Panama , 2004 .

[34]  V. Radeloff,et al.  Image texture as a remotely sensed measure of vegetation structure , 2012 .

[35]  Craig A. Coburn,et al.  A multiscale texture analysis procedure for improved forest stand classification , 2004 .

[36]  M. Herold,et al.  Spatial Metrics and Image Texture for Mapping Urban Land Use , 2003 .

[37]  David Saah,et al.  Aboveground Forest Biomass Estimation with Landsat and LiDAR Data and Uncertainty Analysis of the Estimates , 2012 .

[38]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data : principles and practices , 1998 .

[39]  P. Defourny,et al.  Retrieving forest structure variables based on image texture analysis and IKONOS-2 imagery , 2006 .

[40]  Philip Lewis,et al.  Investigation of the Utility of Spectral Vegetation Indices for Determining Information on Coniferous Forests , 1998 .

[41]  Guiying Li,et al.  Comparative analysis of classification algorithms and multiple sensor data for land use/land cover classification in the Brazilian Amazon , 2012 .